Re: bttv driver bug: VIDIOC_ENUMSTD returns wrong NTSC value
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:05:44 +0100
- From: "H. Willstrand" <h.willstrand@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: bttv driver bug: VIDIOC_ENUMSTD returns wrong NTSC value
On Feb 1, 2008 7:51 PM, Trent Piepho <xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Daniel [iso-8859-1] Glöckner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:37:34AM -0800, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > > The bt848 chip does support NTSC-JP, I guess no one has bothered to add it.
> >
> > It has already been added to bttv as a separate standard. It can't be merged
> > with plain NTSC because it needs a different value for the IFORM register.
>
> That's strange, the original poster said:
>
> > > bttv reports NTSC as 36864 0x9000 1001000000000000
> > > ( V4L2_STD_NTSC_M | V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_KR )
>
> He's saying bttv does _not_ report NTSC-JP as a supported standard. Yet
> you're right, NTSC-JP is listed along with all the other standards in the
> bttv source.
>
> I don't have time to test this. Maybe the original poster was mistaken, or
> maybe there is a bug in the code that provides the bitmask?
>
> Having NTSC-M-JP be it's own standard is the correct thing to do, IMHO.
> It's having NTSC-M-KR as another standard that's wrong, since there is no
> difference in the video signal.
>
According to the Conexant Fusion 878A specification NTSC-Japan is
supported (might not be the case for Bt848A), it's a separate
configuration from NTSC-M.
IMO NTSC-M and NTSC-Japan is the needed standards. Korean seams to
follow NTSC-M, I don't know for sure.
Cheers,
Harri
--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list